P. v. Scott

Filed 9/27/06 P. v. Scott CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yuba)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

HARRY EARNEST SCOTT,

Defendant and Appellant.

C051369

(Super. Ct. No. CRF05551)

Defendant Harry Earnest Scott entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a))^[1] in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and a sentencing lid of 10 years.

The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 10 years, that is, the upper term of eight years for one count and a consecutive one-third the midterm or two years for the second count. The court imposed a restitution fine of $200 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended an additional restitution fine in the same amount pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45). The court also imposed a $200 sex offender fine (§ 290.3) and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8). The court ordered defendant to register as a sex offender, to have no visitation with the victim (§ 1202.05), and to submit to AIDS testing (§ 1202.1). The court reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution and awarded defendant 117 days (102 actual, 15 conduct) of presentence custody credit.

Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5) was denied.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

We note that the amended abstract of judgment requires correction to reflect that the trial court reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 186-187.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting that the trial court reserved jurisdiction over victim restitution, and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.

RAYE , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P.J.

HULL , J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Description	Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and a sentencing lid of 10 years Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Court found no arguable issues. Judgment Affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.